patrick.net

I agree.

The only religion being pushed now is the violent and intolerant religion of woke-stupidity.

People are being fired for not submitting to this idiocy.

It's gotten to the point where a Christian preacher was arrested in England for quoting the bible's position that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Lawsuits are the answer. Matt Moore has a very good case that his rights were violated. I hope he is able to bankrupt his former broker.

Perhaps we should start a society that helps people sue the evil woke employers and others, by providing advice, funding, and perhaps lawyers. A new kind of ACLU to replace the corrupt work ACLU, which is now an instrument of oppression.

The Religion of No Name, or the PostModern Religion, is pushed everywhere in the West from Ads to Sitcoms to Schools. It has a dogma (Racism), eschaton (apocalyptic climate change), and original sin (All Whites are born with racism against POCs).

It really is a religion, not based in reason.

I think it may be a replacement for the "God shaped hole" left by abandonment of Christianity on the coasts.

Patrick says

It really is a religion, not based in reason.

I think it may be a replacement for the "God shaped hole" left by abandonment of Christianity on the coasts.

It definitely is a replacement for faith for Jews who don’t believe in G_d. And they cling to it fervently, preferring it to the religion of their ancestors because it comes with no moral cost. They don’t have to restrain their base impulses or deny themselves the sweet thrill of exercising cruelty on their fellow man. They just have to mouth some platitudes about racism and then let their inner beast loose to hate and lie and envy to their hearts’ content.

Patrick says

The large majority of white liberals are former Christians, or the children of former Christians.

I'm working on a theory about Puritans > Faith replaced in Politics > Puritanical Religion.

If you look at the whole thrust of Leftism in the US, it begins in Western Mass/Upstate NY in the late 19th among Liberal Christians. "Women's Bible", etc.

Shaman says

It definitely is a replacement for faith for Jews who don’t believe in G_d. And they cling to it fervently, preferring it to the religion of their ancestors because it comes with no moral cost. They don’t have to restrain their base impulses or deny themselves the sweet thrill of exercising cruelty on their fellow man. They just have to mouth some platitudes about racism and then let their inner beast loose to hate and lie and envy to their hearts’ content.

This is also very true.

Additionally, you have the Jesuits among the Catholics, always known for their love of universalism, AND a long history of undermining regimes ("banned in dozens of countries!"), AND having plenty of examples of trying to impose a theocratic socialism (Jesuit Reductions in Paraguay)

Patrick says

Not just Jews.

The large majority of white liberals are former Christians, or the children of former Christians.

Yes I think you’re correct. Either former Christians or maybe raised in a Christian or semi-observant Christian household, but fallen away or never really accepted the faith. Woke-ism is their religion now, for the same reasons I listed above.

Jesuits (Soldiers of Christ) acted as a template for State (Church) terrorism. Could be that Communism, Fascism, Hitler and Stalin derived much of their basic rulebooks tactics from tactics of the Church, Jesuits and Inquisition.

Jesuits took over the universities and schools to make sure deviant beliefs did not get off the ground and that the young were 'correctly' indoctrinated.

They were established to fight Protestantism, and remanded individuals to the Inquisition which was active for hundreds of years (think struggle sessions with physical torture and execution, degrading the individual with bizarre, superstitious standards and slaughtering scores remorselessly).

They also engaged in Soros-like undermining of governments when Church and State were fused, kind of like religious color revolutions, and acted as Church spies.

They were eventually disbanded, then came back in a somewhat modified form, and oddly enough, became some of the 'free thinkers' of the Church, which was unlike their original mission to be enforcers. The Church offered moral exceptions to its apparatchiks. They had already established networks of schools and universities, so they remained in eduction.

The Church is loaded with these paramilitary groups over the ages doing the Church's dirty work. Some, like the Knights Templar, were given usury exceptions as military bodies and established systems of finance and lending with often mafia like interest rates.

forklift says

What consenting adults do behind closed doors should never have been the business of government.

True, and this argument invalidates the rest of your post. Marriage (as the thing gays fought for) is a government imposed legal status which conveys a host of other legal statuses. This makes it a function of government, and therefore we now have government in that business.

If gays had been satisfied with domestic partnerships, this wouldn’t have been an issue, but they wanted GOVERNMENT recognition and support of their behavior. That takes it from a libertarian argument to a authoritarian argument.
Can you see that?

The marriage thing always baffled me when all the human rights issues had already been established. That's when i began to believe the motives were subversive rather than constructive.

I worked with a woman who used to say that a marriage license is a government "license to fuck" and she doesn't need their permission. I think she's right about that.

But there are also economic implications to marriage. The gay marriage thing seems at least partly motivated by taxes. I guess it's cheaper to file jointly if you are legally married.

Gay marriage is pointless, the whole point of marriage is to procreate in a family unit to nurture children, and future generation, of "YOUR" genes.

Ceffer says

They were eventually disbanded, then came back in a somewhat modified form, and oddly enough, became some of the 'free thinkers' of the Church, which was unlike their original mission to be enforcers. The Church offered moral exceptions to its apparatchiks. They had already established networks of schools and universities, so they remained in eduction.

Exactly. The whole history of 16th-17th Century England is basically Jesuit Subversiveness.

forklift says

Well, now we're stuck with this shitty solution because the right wanted to force their culture upon others, so the left has deemed it necessary to force their own culture onto society. Wouldn't it have been great if we were all just left to choose what culture we wanted for ourselves and our families?

The exact opposite; the whole thing was a slippery slope that started with decriminalizing/not enforcing Sodomy laws, through civil unions that become marriage, that became anti-bullying, that has now ended up with not only Pro-Gay Affirmation Propaganda, but Trans Propaganda at the public level, paid with public funds.

It should have started and ended with Sodomy laws not applying in residences of gays or select "gay areas" like bars and bathhouses, but enforced everywhere else. Now California has banned police from DNA testing condoms and tissues in public bathroom troll locations, lest a gay person be held to the same standards of Hets in terms of Public Indecency. Or that the knowing spread of HIV/AIDS (and HIV alone) by non-disclosure is decriminalized, whereas TB and anything else is rigorously held to regulations and enforcement.

The mistake of Libertarians was to forget that nature abhors a vacuum, and if Conservatives don't stand up to Sexual Immorality, the void will be filled with Leftist Degeneracy.

I used to believe "Don't impose your morality on me" ... it's become "Let me impose my immorality on you"

Sexuality is the most territorial of territorial instincts. It will always raise hackles, and it is why it needs to remain compartmentalized. Even aside from moral arguments, there have been subcultures that catered to those whose behavior and sexuality offended the bulk of the population. They need to remain in their subculture venues with like minded individuals.

The social subversives know that sexual minority practices are always the bomb against public instincts of family, pair bonding, genetic succession and nominal morals. They just use it as gasoline subversion.

Gays and sexual minorities should know better than to step outside their subculture contexts, because they will never be immune to social backlash, it's in the biology for better or worse.

Patrick says

I guess it's cheaper to file jointly if you are legally married.

It depends. If dual income it's usually more expensive.

Tenpoundbass says

Gay marriage is pointless, the whole point of marriage is to procreate in a family unit to nurture children, and future generation, of "YOUR" genes.

Yes, marriage is in essence about legitimizing children in a ceremony where the man says "I agree to support the children from this marriage." And men do this with the understanding that the woman will not cheat and will care for the kids. Even with infertile couples, it's still a promise for the husband to support the wife.

Gay marriage is a mockery of all that, a childish demand to be called something they are not. Very much like tranny demands for you to lie in public about their actual sex.

Eric Holder says

It depends. If dual income it's usually more expensive.

At least in California it’s cheaper to file jointly. That’s because California has a community property rule where the sum total of a husband/wife’s income is split to calculate tax liability if filing separately. And there’s a benefit in the tax schedules to filing jointly. I suppose if they aren’t married then it might be different.

Shaman says

At least in California it’s cheaper to file jointly. That’s because California has a community property rule where the sum total of a husband/wife’s income is split to calculate tax liability if filing separately.

True. But this is another way this state is fucked.

Eric Holder says

True. But this is another way this state is fucked.

Har, Har! "How is California totally fucked? Let me count the ways."

Ceffer says

Har, Har! "How is California totally fucked? Let me count the ways."

It sure would be a lot nicer if there wasn’t such a hefty state income tax.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

I'm working on a theory about Puritans > Faith replaced in Politics > Puritanical Religion.

If you look at the whole thrust of Leftism in the US, it begins in Western Mass/Upstate NY in the late 19th among Liberal Christians. "Women's Bible", etc.

Huh, I think you're right there. Had not considered it.

And I bet most of those very liberal Christians were women.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

How does Gay Marriage Harm You?

Someone could as easily make the case of How does child molestation harm you? If it doesn't harm you in any way, shouldn't it be OK in general?

Ceffer says

It's called demoralization, not moralization, simple. Everything is upside down, nothing makes sense, people are scrambled on purpose, lies are force fed as doctrine etc. etc.

Yeah I dread June and all the gay worship.

It hurts everyone. Promotes idea of sodomy as normal... existance based on hedonistic pleasure seeking and life of irresponsible behavior.

Patrick says

And I bet most of those very liberal Christians were women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxKAI3gIVRU

The whiff of hopium: Look at the crowd in the pews; all of them are past their fertile years, many by decades.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

It ain't even about the Gay, or the Religion, it's about controlling you. Forcing you to condone degeneracy is a bonus.

People hate Bible Christianity because the Bible peers into the heart and soul and reveals every offense we are guilty of. The homonormative, transnormative, pedonormative, whateverotherperversionormative movement seeks to override their own consciences as well as societies conscience which is silently screaming day and night that these lifestyles are offensive to the Creator.

I believe that the reason people with strange sexual lives want so desperately for others to accept and condone their behavior is because deep down their conscience is condemning themselves.

The fact that Christians are now being arrested for speaking their beliefs tells you how far gone this culture has become. If you are offended by a person who says that God condemns a certain lifestyle, that is your problem. But if we start jailing people for speaking their beliefs that is ALL of our problems. When people can be jailed for speaking their beliefs it is only a matter of time before they jail any one of us on their whims of control.

Fortwaynemobile says

Promotes idea of sodomy as normal

What about anal sex in a hetero relationship, do you also see this as wrong?

BayArea says

Fortwaynemobile says

Promotes idea of sodomy as normal

What about anal sex in a hetero relationship, do you also see this as wrong?

That is actually wrong yes. Biblically wrong, fucking poop basically.

First, the state has no authority to say who's married or not. And last, this isn't about gay marriage, it's about free speech. Gay marriage isn't harming this guy, censorship is. But good news, this sound extremely libelous, lawyer up dude!

Anal sex is freakin' nasty, period. Would you stick your dick in a gas station toilet with a turd in it?

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

Would you stick your dick in a gas station toilet with a turd in it?

There you go, getting them all excited again.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

Anal sex is freakin' nasty, period. Would you stick your dick in a gas station toilet with a turd in it?

Not in Bloomington, IL. Came back from Ozarks over the weekend and stopped there. Zero fucks were given on upkeep and meth heads chilling in a single occupant bathroom, probably fucking each other or blowing each other. Two motels next door. Shady America at it's finest. They also got $1,200+ if they have a dependent for drugs and are fucked up.

We've got to stop paying people to be deadbeats. There's no valid argument. I'd rather pay to open the asylums again at this point. Lobotomize people again. We've gone full Tropic Thunder retard at this point.

WookieMan says

We've got to stop paying people to be deadbeats. There's no valid argument. I'd rather pay to open the asylums again at this point.

Well, you're just 40 years too late.

I mean honestly, how hard would it be to build a building designed exclusively for high density living in a secluded area for homeless people to get clean and back on their feet?

A 10' by 3' room with just a bed, and if you want to get fancy, extended by 3x3' for a toilet, sink and shower. You wouldn't even have to heat a place so small. Fold up bed, communal kitchen, and then a bunch of work programs or education. Maybe mental health workshops.

The truth is the government has no interest in fixing the problem. They only care about exploiting people.

You could rent new RV's for less than $2600 in quantity.

I agree that it would actually be pretty cheap to house in the homeless far away from the cities, and that government does not actually care about doing that.

But from my experiences with the homeless in SF, they demand to be in the cities because that's where the drug supply is, and the majority of them are on hard drugs. That's what they live for, so they're not going to go out to the boonies. I think a lot of them are thieves and prostitutes to get their drug money, and the pickings would also be slim out in the countryside.

There's another set, I think a smaller set, which is the mentally ill. They may want help, but some of them are quite difficult to help. They might benefit from a stable place to live away from the city, but they would need food as well as housing. They live on the scraps of the city, kind of like pigeons.

I think there are very few who are truly long-term homeless outside those two groups. Anyone who is not mentally ill and willing to work can usually find someplace to live.

Patrick says

marriage license is a government "license to fuck"

I'm not married to my "wife" for this exact reason. 18 years and going strong. I do not invite the government into my relationships.

It’s not my intention to hurt anyone, but there are certain truths that we must face when ready. I love all of my students, but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences. I’m a teacher, but I serve God first, and I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it’s against my religion. It’s lying to a child, it’s abuse to a child, and it’s sinning against our God.

On Friday, the district confirmed that Cross had been put on paid leave. Leesburg Elementary principal Shawn Lacy issued a brief statement.

“Because this involves a personnel matter, I can offer no further information,” Lacy wrote.

Cross’s wife believes all the information needed to understand her husband’s forced leave is available. Angela Cross took to Facebook on Friday to say that her husband was placed on leave “as a result of his speaking out.”

“As Americans, we believe that every American has the right to their beliefs, but NO AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS,” she wrote.

“We spoke out first and foremost to protect the children and also to defend the first amendment rights of teachers and staff,” Angela Cross wrote.

“We spoke out first and foremost to protect the children and also to defend the first amendment rights of teachers and staff.”

According to the Loudoun Times-Mirror, the specific policy Cross refused to follow stated that “staff shall allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity without any substantiating evidence.”

Angela Cross stated that her husband “will do everything he can” to return to work as soon as possible.

https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2021/05/28/gym-teacher-put-on-leave-after-refusing-to-address-trans-students-by-preferred-pronouns/

https://notthebee.com/article/japanese-district-court-rules-against-same-sex-marriage-because-and-i-quote-marriage-is-a-relationship-between-a-man--a-woman

Japanese court rules against same-sex marriage because, and I quote, "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman"

Japan remains the only member of the Group of Seven major industrialized nations that does not recognize same-sex marriage, as the Osaka District Court ruled that the country's ban on gay marriage does not violate the nation's constitution.

In 2019, 14 same-sex couples filed lawsuits against the government in five cities: Sapporo, Tokyo, Nagoya, Fukuoka, and Osaka. So far Sapporo and Osaka have had rulings; neither granting a ruling against the government.

While the Sapporo opinion ruled that banning same-sex marriage was a form of discrimination that violated Article 14 of the Japanese constitution, it did not violate Article 24 of the Japanese constitution, which lays out the country's rights concerning marriage and says,

"Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."

Note the "both sexes" bit.

Homosexuality has been legal in Japan since 1880, so they made a point to make marriage distinctly for heterosexual couples in their constitution, which makes it very difficult to argue that banning gay marriage is "unconstitutional."

The Osaka court reiterated the country of Japan's official position on marriage, which is that the

"purpose of marriage was reproduction," and that "marriage is a relationship between a man & a woman to bear children and raise them together in cohabitation."

Yup. Gay marriage was another landing craft for this war on the family. Rockefeller/lesbian financed feminism was one of the first. Women were stupid enough to believe that shit, while insisting on full female privilege. They always insist on full female privilege.

Patrick says

I think there are very few who are truly long-term homeless outside those two groups. Anyone who is not mentally ill and willing to work can usually find someplace to live.

A homeless guy used to live on my street. He used to caution me against his "violent dog" who was anything but - I think he said that because he was afraid of me. I'm generally good with dogs anyhow and it was just a little thing, even if it was violent, nicks and scratches.

We struck up a little bit of a friendship. He was bankrupted by medical debt when he got cancer. He was employed. Worked security. He had a gym membership so he could shower and clean up. I'm right next to a Safeway that has a public toilet. I'm certain the proximity to Safeway gave him unlimited internet use as well. Not a bad guy.

I think there's quite a few people like that. He wasn't a drug addict, he wasn't mentally ill. He just needed some stability to get back onto his feet.